The editors of *Izvestia*, which are in the hands of the bloc of Populists and Mensheviks, are breaking all records of confusion. In No. 67 of May 16, they attempt to polemicize with *Pravda*, naturally without naming it, in the foul "ministerial" manner. *Pravda*, you see, supposedly has a murky, deceptive concept regarding annexations.

Pardon us, gentlemen ministers and minister-aspirant editors, but a fact is a fact, namely, that only our party has provided a precise, official definition of annexation in its resolutions. Annexation (seizure) is the forcible retention of a foreign people within the boundaries of a given state. No person capable of reading and understanding Russian could have failed to understand this after reading the appendix to No. 13 of *Soldatskaya Pravda* (resolutions of the All-Russian Conference of April 24–29, 1917){66}.

What is the objection of the Populist and Menshevik editors of *Izvestia*? Only that from our point of view one would supposedly have to "wage war until Germany turns into the Grand Duchy of Brandenburg... Russia—into the Grand Principality of Moscow"!! Annexation, the editorial board instructs its readers, "means the forcible seizure of territory that was in the possession of another state on the day war was declared" (in short: no annexation = status quo, that is, the restoration of the condition that existed before the war).

It is careless on the part of the Populist and Menshevik leaders of the Executive Committee to entrust the editorship to people with such chaos in their heads—truly, careless.

Let us apply their objection against us to their own definition: "wage war until Russia returns Poland, Germany—Togo and colonies in Africa"?? Obvious nonsense, and not merely theoretical nonsense, but practical nonsense as well, for soldiers of any country would drive out editors who reason in such a manner.

Their reasoning is mistaken in the following respects:

1) The theoretical definition of annexation includes the concept: "foreign" people, that is, a people that has retained its distinctiveness and will for separate existence. Think about this, fellow citizens; read, if the matter is still unclear to you, the arguments of Engels and Marx on Ireland, on the Danish parts of Germany, on colonies,—and you will see how confused you have become. Neither the Grand Duchy of Brandenburg nor the Grand Principality of Moscow has anything to do with it whatsoever. 2) To confuse the question of the concept of annexation with the question of "how long to wage war" is absurd; it means not understanding the connection between war and the interests and domination of specific classes; it means, from the standpoint of class struggle, switching to the standpoint of the petty bourgeois, the "non-class" standpoint. As long as the capitalist class is in power, peoples will inevitably wage war "for as long as" this class desires. To escape from this through wishes, demands, and conferences—that is the illusion of the petty bourgeoisie. 3) As long as the capitalist class is in power, their peace will inevitably be an "exchange of annexations," Armenia for Lorraine, colonies for colonies, Galicia for Courland and the like. For an ignorant person to close his eyes to this is pardonable; for the editors of *Izvestia* it is not. 4) When the proletariat is in power, to which war everywhere leads and brings, only then is a genuinely "peace without annexations" possible; otherwise it is impossible.

When our party says: "peace without annexations," it always explains—as a warning to people with chaos in their heads—that this slogan must be placed in inseparable connection with proletarian revolution. Only in connection with it is it necessary and true; only does it outline its line; only does it aid its development and growth. Whoever wavers helplessly between hope in the capitalists and hope in the workers' revolution condemns himself to helplessness and confusion on the question of annexations in general.

P.S. *Delo Naroda* of May 17 agrees with *Izvestia* that "without annexations" is equivalent to the concept of "status quo." Try, gentlemen Socialist-Revolutionaries or gentlemen Mensheviks, to state this clearly, precisely, directly, in the name of your party, your Petrograd Committee, your congress!

*Pravda* No. 60, May 31 (18), 1917

Printed from the text of the newspaper *Pravda*